Boston Globe: Prominent law firm pays questionable ‘bonuses’ to partners for campaign contributions
But a striking thing happened the day Tester visited in 2010. Partner David C. Strouss received a payment from the firm labeled as a “bonus” that exactly equaled his $2,400 contribution to Tester’s campaign, the maximum allowed. A few days later, partner Garrett Bradley — until recently the House assistant majority leader on Beacon Hill — got a bonus, too, exactly matching his $2,400 gift to Tester.
This pattern of payments — contributions offset by bonus payments — was commonplace at Thornton, according to a review of law firm records by the Spotlight Team and the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based nonprofit that tracks campaign finance data.
From 2010 through 2014, Strouss and Bradley, along with founding partner Michael Thornton and his wife, donated nearly $1.6 million to Democratic Party fund-raising committees and a parade of politicians — from Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada to Hawaii gubernatorial candidate David Ige to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Over the same span, the lawyers received $1.4 million listed as “bonuses” in Thornton Law Firm records; more than 280 of the contributions precisely matched bonuses that were paid within 10 days.
This is my shocked face.
😐Report
This is disgraceful. They should just start a perfectly legal SuperPAC instead.Report
When did legalities matter to Dems? Rules are for other people. Besides, it’s not like they should be afraid the FBI.Report
Must be s*** lawyers if they can’t hide it better than that.Report
Burried wayyyy deep in the article, they offer at least a glimmer of a defense. They describe the system as not a bonus but an advancement of one form of deferred compensation (equity). As long as the employee is donating something that is theirs and not the company’s, it should be legit. However, shenangins often involve equity transfers.
As the esteemed Road Scholar points out, one would expect better of a politically connected law firm. One would think that they would know better than to do something so clearly a violation. I would love to see where this goes. But with the current environment where corruption is expected this is probably the last we will hear of it.Report
Agreed. When you slack off your diligence in covering up your corruption, THAT’S when you get caught.Report
Thing is, it’s a really good example of how hard it would be to, should the law change to counter the Citizen’s United decision, keep money out of politics.Report
…should the law change to counter the Citizen’s United decision, keep money out of politics.
I’m not sure whether to underscore this virtual impossibility with something humorous but stated in a rascally type of way, or something more serious and brooding.
I think I might go with the self-aware pensive thing, something tentative and vague.
Maybe, though not at all assured, I may go with something oblique, to comment on the matter without saying anything directly about it.
Or I may just do something seemingly profound, though largely inconsequential on further inspection.
Indecision is the glue which binds us together.Report